1 The Marks acceptingand using biblical scripture which they take as being divinely inspiredand therefore 100% accurate and infallible

2 Derek rejecting biblical scripture as fairy tale and bunkum

3 Myself regarding thebible (plus add-ons) as important historical evidence of a visitationto our planet 6000 years ago, yet due to the technological restrictionsof both the writers and the translators, and due to the time betweenoral tradition and the words being put on paper, a number ofinaccuracies have incurred. Plus censorship over the years.

If only God had the foresight to commit the whole lot to stone instead of just the 10 commandments!

I have taken more timeto look at your bible science as this is more my field of expertise.Although I commonly use the same translation of the bible as you foreveryday reading as I find it easier, I tend to go back to the originalHebrew in these discussions rather than another's interpretation,particularly the WTB&TS. who let's face it, have been wrong on anumber of occasions.

I fully recommendStrong's Concordance which gives a list of potential alternativemeanings in the original language, if like me, despite being an avidbible student, you have not had the time to learn the original biblelanguages yourself. You can find it right here on the Net.

Astronomy:

The Hebrews were devout students of the wonders of the starry firmanent (Amo 5:8; Psa 19).In the Book of Job, which is the oldest book of the Bible in allprobability, the constellations are distinguished and named. Mention ismade of the "morning star" (Rev 2:28; Isa 14:12), the "seven stars" and "Pleiades," "Orion," "Arcturus," the "Great Bear" (Amo 5:8; Job 9:9; 38:31), "the crooked serpent," Draco (Job 26:13), the Dioscuri, or Gemini, "Castor and Pollux" (Act 28:11). The stars were called "the host of heaven" (Isa 40:26; Jer 33:22).

The oldest divisions of time were mainly based on the observation of themovements of the heavenly bodies, the "ordinances of heaven" (Gen 1:14-18; Job 38:33; Jer 31:35; 33:25).Such observations led to the division of the year into months and themapping out of the appearances of the stars into twelve portions, whichreceived from the Greeks the name of the "zodiac." The word "Mazzaroth"(Job 38:32)means, as the margin notes, "the twelve signs" of the zodiac.Astronomical observations were also necessary among the Jews in orderto the fixing of the proper time for sacred ceremonies, the "newmoons," the "passover," etc. Many allusions are found to the display ofGod's wisdom and power as seen in the starry heavens (Psa 8; 19:1-6; Isa 51:6, etc.)

Above is my defence of biblical astronomy, known also amongst other nations of the time, and

mostly gleaned from the times the Israelites spent in captivity inEgypt and Babylon before the spoken word was committed to print. Ifyour version of the bible disagrees, look up the Hebrew/Greekalternatives in Strong's and form your own opinion rather than what theSociety tells you to believe.

To business ...

The Bible is in harmony with modern science.

A careful consideration of all of the evidence shows that the most questionable area is the interpretation of Biblical literalists.

The Watchtower Society'scomplete lack of comprehension of science, while pretending theopposite, was one of the main things that clued me in as to their truenature. This is a commentary on the Watchtower Society's 1989 book The Bible: God's Word or Man's?, Chapter 8: "Science: Has It Proved the Bible Wrong?"

Chapter 8

Science: Has It Proved the Bible Wrong?

In 1613 the Italianscientist Galileo published a work known as "Letters on Sunspots." Init, he presented evidence that the earth rotates around the sun,

A minor point here which

shows the lack of familiarity of the WTB&TS with science and itsterminology: in the parlance of astronomers "rotate" is usedexclusively to describe the motion of a body around its own axis, while"revolve" refers to a body going around another body in an orbit. Thus,the earth revolves around the sun, and it rotates on its own axis.

rather than the sunaround the earth. By so doing, he set in motion a series of events thatfinally brought him before the Roman Catholic Inquisition under"vehement suspicion of heresy." Eventually, he was forced to "recant."

Why was the idea thatthe earth moves around the sun viewed as heresy? Because Galileo'saccusers claimed that it was contrary to what the Bible says.

That is exactly what the Society says about the arguments of people who disagree with it.

Let us note that in thesame publication, the WTB&TS later returns to this topic to attemptto answer the charges of Galileo's accusers. It does so in its usualfashion: by setting up strawmen and knocking them down.

It is widely held today

that the Bible is unscientific, and some point to Galileo's experiencesto prove it. But is this the case? When answering that question, wehave to remember that the Bible is a book of prophecy, history, prayer,law, counsel, and knowledge about God. It does not claim to be ascientific textbook. Nevertheless, when the Bible does touch onscientific matters, what it says is completely accurate.

Not always. Consider,

for example, your quote what the Bible says about our planet, theearth. In the book of Job, we read: "[God] is stretching out the northover the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing."

Much could be said aboutthis, but let us simply note that the Greek philosopher Anaximander(ca. 6th century B.C.E.) also thought that the earth was hung uponnothing. He conceived of the earth as a cylinder, suspended on nothingat the center of the sky, which was a hollow sphere surrounding theearth. So the Bible's reference to the earth hanging on nothing is notunique.

We will also see thatevery reference in the Bible to the shape of the earth indicates aflat, circular form -- not a sphere. So if the Bible's reference toGod's "hanging the earth upon nothing" is literal, it is not far fromAnaximander's idea.

(Job 26:7) Compare thiswith Isaiah's statement, when he says: "There is One who is dwellingabove the circle of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) The picture conveyed ofa round earth 'hanging upon nothing' in "the empty place" reminds usstrongly of the photographs taken by astronauts of the sphere of theearth floating in empty space.

This is among the worst

of the Society's arguments about how the Bible is consistent withscience. The Hebrew word translated "circle" hardly ever means anythingbut "circle", and in the Bible means only circle. In the Hebrew it never means "sphere". See 2329 of Strong's Concordance.

When we look at allof the Biblical references to the shape of the earth, we find aconsistent picture: the earth is a flat, circular structure (like apizza pie) with the dome of the sky suspended above it like a tent.What the Society has done here is to capitalize on the fact that the English word "round" equally describes a sphere and a circle.

Furthermore, theSociety's argument ignores the fact that many of the ancients knewperfectly well that the earth is spherical. When it is convenient,Watchtower writers will even acknowledge this. The December 22, 1977 Awake!(p. 17) acknowledged that the Greek scholar Pythagoras, of the 6thcentury B.C.E., knew it. Many other Greek thinkers knew it as well,including Anaxagoras (5th cent. B.C.E.), Aristotle and Aristarchus (4thcent. B.C.E.), Eratosthenes (3rd cent. B.C.E.; he actually measured thediameter of the earth to within 12% of the correct value), Hipparchus(2nd cent. B.C.E.), and Ptolemy (2nd cent. C.E.). There is evenevidence that the ancient Sumerians, around 2000 B.C.E., knew that theearth is spherical. So even if the Bible writers really had in mind thetrue shape of the earth, the fact that other ancient peoples knew itdoes not prove anything about the Bible's inspiration or lack thereof.

Now, what does the Bible reallysay about the shape of the earth? Nowhere does it say that it isspherical. On the contrary, all of the references indicate, as I saidabove, a flat, circular shape like a pizza pie. Let's see what a fewscriptures say, to get the general flavor.

In the New World Translation Daniel 4:10-11 relates Nebuchadnezzar's dream:

"'Now the visions of my

head upon my bed I happened to be beholding, and, look! a tree in themidst of the earth, the height of which was immense. The tree grew upand became strong, and its very height finally reached the heavens, andit was visible to the extremity of the whole earth.'"

The word "midst" means

"middle" or "centre." Consistently, other Bible versions say "a tree inthe middle (or center) of the earth." This verse says that the tree wasvisible to the extremity of the whole earth, and therefore paints apicture of a flat, circular earth. The tree stood in its center and hadits top in the heavens so as to be visible from all over the earth.This would be impossible on a spherical earth. But the picture iscompletely consistent with the idea that God "is dwelling above thecircle of the earth".

Daniel 4:10-11 describesa vision given to Nebuchadnezzar by God, and the Society says it is amajor prophecy of the Bible. Why would God give a prophecy of suchimportance by giving an incorrect picture of the shape of the earth? IfDaniel and his contemporaries had a mental picture of the earth as asphere, and the vision pictured the earth as a sphere, what part of theearth could be called the center? How could a tree of any height bevisible to its extremities? If Daniel had a mental picture of the earthas a sphere, and the vision pictured the earth as a flat circle withthe tree in its center, would not Daniel and his readers have beenconfused? The logical conclusion is that Daniel's mental picture andthe vision were consistent, and therefore that the scripture suggeststhe picture the Bible writers had of the shape of the earth. Itsuggests a flat, circular area large enough to hold all the kingdomsknown to the Bible writers, with the heavens a hemispherical vaultnestled down over the earth, not unlike the picture in Greek mythology.If one says that this scripture is just using picturesque language,then equally well can it be argued that Isaiah 40:22 is too.

The Interpreter's Bible argues similarly:

.... the ancient Oriental conception of the world tree.... was commonly conceived of as being on the navel of the earth, and so in the midst of the earth.

In those days the earth was thought of as a disk, with the heavens asan upturned bowl above it; thus the tree is pictured as growing in thecenter of the land mass of this disk and extending upwards until itstop touched the vault of heaven, in which case, of course, it would bevisible from any point along the edge of the land mass. [Vol. 5, p.410, Abingdon Press, New York, 1956]

The picture in Daniel is further strengthened by the account of the Devil's tempting Jesus. Matthew 4:8 says:

Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

Again the picture is

that all the kingdoms of the world could be viewed from a sufficientlyhigh mountain, which is not possible on a spherical earth. If this wasnot the intended picture, then why was it used? The Devil could haveshowed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world from anywhere at all.

With this picture of a flat, circular earth in mind, note how Isaiah 40:22 makes complete sense:

There is One who isdwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are asgrasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a finegauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell.

This scripture, and the

picture of a flat, circular earth with a roof over it, also make senseas rendered in other Bible translations. This is typical:

God sits throned on the vaulted roof of the earth. (The New English Bible)

There is nothing in

Isaiah 40:22 to conflict with the picture of a flat, circular earth.Other scriptures give a similar picture. Job 22:14 says of God:

.... on the vault of heaven he walks about. (New World Translation)

.... he walketh in the circuit of heaven. (King James)

.... he prowls on the rim of the heavens. (The Jerusalem Bible)

Job 37:18 says the heavens are hard like a metal mirror:

With him can you beat out the skies hard like a molten mirror? (New World Translation)

Can you beat out the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal? (The New English Bible)

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a heavy metal mirror? (King James)Will you.... Be with him to consolidate heavens strong as a metal mirror? (The Bible in Living English)

Can you help him to spread the vault of heaven, Or temper that mirror of cast metal? (The Jerusalem Bible)

As to viewing the vault of heaven as a thin metal sheet, Isaiah 34:4 mentions:

And the heavens must be rolled up, just like a book scroll. (New World Translation)

.... and the skies will curl back like a roll of paper. (The Bible in Living English)

The earth is conceivedas a dome. In Prov. 8:27 the circle (hu'gh) is the "vault over the faceof the abyss" (teh'om); in Job 22:14 Yahweh walks upon the vault of theheavens.

Of course, the sky is

immaterial. What we perceive as a solid dome over our heads is simplythe scattering of blue light from white sunlight. Many other scripturesrefer to the earth in connection with a circle, and varioustranslations render the verses in such a way that a picture of acircle, not a sphere, emerges. Many of these scriptures might be viewedas using allegory or poetic license to make a point, not as a literalstatement of the shape of the earth or the composition of the heavenlyroof.

But this is precisely the point about Isaiah 40:22. In fact, the scripture makes absolutelyno sense if interpreted completely literally and with the idea thatIsaiah had in mind a spherical earth: the idea that God is sitting"above" the spherical earth means that he is out in space somewhere,and is even sometimes directly below people on one side of theearth, and sometimes off to the side. One can certainly interpret theidea of "above" as allegorical, but that kills the claim that Isaiah'swords prove that he knew the earth is spherical.

The book of Job, in thescriptures quoted above, obviously uses both figurative and literallanguage; any conclusions showing which it is using in any particularcase are open to a great deal of argument and will be biased by theprejudices of whoever is making the arguments. In other words, theBible cannot be used to prove anything about what its writers believedabout the shape of the earth.

In light of all thescriptures that talk of a circular earth, heavens like a beaten metalmirror that can be rolled up, and the lack of definitive context forIsaiah 40:22 that shows that it refers to a sphere, one cannot claimthat the scripture says the earth is spherical. Therefore Isaiah 40:22cannot be used to prove that Bible writers were divinely inspired.

The question as to whatIsaiah 40:22 really means illustrates the point that there can be morethan one interpretation of what a Bible writer is really saying.Describing wisdom, Proverbs 8:27 in the New World Translation says:

when he prepared the heavens I was there; when he decreed a circle upon the face of the watery deep.

The Interpreter's Bible comments (Vol. 4, p. 832):

Vss. 27-31 describewisdom at the creation of the world. She saw God spread out thefirmament like a vault over the earth. She saw the mighty waters of thedeep hemmed in at God's command by the great land masses. She was byGod's side as he created the universe and the various forms of lifethat were to inhabit it. Compass or circle: The term probably refers to the "vault" or solid expanse of the sky which, like a dome, rested on the deep....

In like manner, many

more of the Society's arguments about the inspiration of the Bible canbe shown to rest on a foundation of wishful thinking.

Consider, too, the earth's amazing water cycle. Here is how Compton's Encyclopedia

describes what happens: "Water ... evaporates from the surface of theoceans into the atmosphere ... Steadily moving air currents in theearth's atmosphere carry the moist air inland. When the air cools, thevapor condenses to form water droplets. These are seen most commonly asclouds. Often the droplets come together to form raindrops. If theatmosphere is cold enough, snowflakes form instead of raindrops. Ineither case, water that has traveled from an ocean hundreds or eventhousands of miles away falls to the earth's surface. There it gathersinto streams or soaks into the ground and begins its journey back tothe sea."1

This remarkable process, which makes life on dry land possible, was welldescribed about 3,000 years ago in simple, straightforward terms in theBible: "All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; backto the place from which the streams ran they return to run again." --Ecclesiastes 1:7, The New English Bible.

The only thing in the quoted scripture that is not completely obvious is the idea that the waters return

to the place from which they originally ran. But even this is not aparticularly surprising statement. I will leave it to you to figure outwhy.

5Perhaps

even more remarkable is the Bible's insight into the history ofmountains. Here is what a textbook on geology says: "From Pre-Cambriantimes down to the present, the perpetual process of building anddestroying mountains has continued.... Not only have mountainsoriginated from the bottom of vanished seas, but they have often beensubmerged long after their formation, and then re-elevated."

Compare this with the poetic language of the psalmist: "With a watery deep just

like a garment you covered [the earth]. The waters were standing abovethe very mountains. Mountains proceeded to ascend, valley plainsproceeded to descend -- to the place that you have founded for them."-- Psalm 104:6, 8.

Here we run into some fairly typical WTS failings: ascribing far more authority to a source

than it deserves, quoting out-of-date sources and claiming that theextremely obvious poetic descriptions in some Bible passages aresomehow scientifically accurate.

The Book of Popular Scienceby Grolier is often quoted in WTB&TS literature, and that waspublished in 1967. A book whose title contains the words "popularscience" is by definition not a "geology textbook". Anyone who thinksdifferent is ignorant of science and of the publishing industry.Obviously, the WTB&TS try to bolster theircase by ascribing moreauthority to this source than it deserves. Of course, this says nothingabout whether the quoted source is accurate.

However, I next note the date of the source: 1967. In the 1960s the science of geology underwenta revolution centered around the theory known as "plate tectonics". In1967 the science of plate tectonics was still being hammered out byvarious geologists in many forums including standard scientificjournals. The ultimate findings, which were published in the late 1960sand 1970s, did not find themselves into popular works untilmuch later, many of which became available in the 1980s. Popular worksin 1967 still reflected the fact that scientists until then had littleidea of the origins of mountains and so on, and that for all anyoneknew, mountains and valleys rose and fell sporadically without anyrhyme or reason. The WTB&TS quote reflects that ignorance verynicely. For example, in 1967 the "popular" works on geology had no ideahow the Hawaiian Islands -- a gigantic volcanic chain extending fromthe big island of Hawaii all the way to the Kamchatka Peninsula -- hadformed. But the geologists were working and eventually figured it allout. References will be given on request. Naturally, the WTS and thepopular book it quoted knew nothing of these developments. One wonderswhy the Society choses to quote an outdated book, when by 1989 plentyof good works on plate tectonics were available.

Finally, you might consider the Bible's rather obvious idea that mountains ascend andvalleys descend, and that "waters" once covered them. Once again, ifyou need an explanation as to why this is obvious, I will gladlyprovide it.

"The very first verse of the Bible states: "In the beginning God created theheavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) Observations have led scientiststo theorize that the material universe did indeed have a beginning. Ithas not existed for all time. Astronomer Robert Jastrow, an agnostic inreligious matters, wrote: "The details differ, but the essentialelements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are thesame: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharplyat a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

True, many scientists, while believing that the universe had a beginning, do not accept the statement that "God created."

Nevertheless, some now admit that it is difficult to ignore the evidence of some kindof intelligence behind everything. Physics professor Freeman Dysoncomments: "The more I examine the universe and study the details of itsarchitecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sensemust have known that we were coming."

8Dyson goes on to admit: "Being a scientist, trained in the habits of thoughtand language of the twentieth century rather than the eighteenth, I donot claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence ofGod. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistentwith the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in itsfunctioning."

His comment certainly betrays the skeptical attitude of our time. Butputting that skepticism aside, one notes there is a remarkable harmonybetween modern science and the Bible's statement that "in the beginningGod created the heavens and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1.

Wow. So many words to describe so simple a concept: most scientists and the Bible agree that

there was a beginning to everything. Well, whoop-de-doo. Most ancientcultures agree that everything began at some point. So what? Were thoseancient writings and legends inspired by the God of the Bible? Clearlynot. Why then, would anyone argue that a particular apparent legend --the Biblical version of origins -- was any different?

If the Bible is so accurate in scientific fields, why did the Catholic Church

say that Galileo's teaching that the earth moved around the sun wasunscriptural? Because of the way authorised religion interprets certainBible verses.

claims that vaccinations are beneficial to health were unscriptural?Because of the way the Governing Body interpreted certain Bible verses.Ditto for their teaching about organ transplants, and the idea that thephysical heart was the seat of emotions, and the claim that a person'spersonality resided in the blood, and the claim that God kept histhrone on the star Alcyone in the Pleiades constellation, and the claimthat Christ had returned in 1874, and that "the saints" had beenresurrected in 1878.

A few more examples ....

1One passage says: "The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and there it rises." (Ecclesiastes 1:5, The Jerusalem Bible)According to the Church's argument, expressions such as "the sun rises"and "the sun sets" meant that the sun, not the earth, is moving. Buteven today we say that the sun rises and sets, and most of us know that it is the earth that moves, not the sun. When we use expressions like these, we are merely describing the apparent motion of the sun as it appears to a human observer. The Bible writer was doing exactly the same.

This argument sounds awfully good to some people today, who know about space satellites and

trips to the moon. But in Galileo's day plenty of ignorant religionistshad only the words of the Bible to go on. Does the Bible not say thatGod created the earth in six days, and that it is fixed on itsfoundations, and that the sun rise and sets, and that God specificallycreated each kind of animal? Which of these, among many otherstatements, can be properly evaluated without the help of solidscience? The answer is: not many.

14 The other passage says: "You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakeable for ever and ever." (Psalm 104:5, The Jerusalem Bible)This was interpreted to mean that after its creation the earth couldnever move. In fact, though, the verse stresses the permanence of theearth, not its immobility. The earth will never be 'shaken' out ofexistence, or destroyed, as other Bible verses confirm. (Psalm 37:29;Ecclesiastes 1:4) This scripture, too, has nothing to do with therelative motion of the earth and the sun. In Galileo's time, it was theChurch, not the Bible, that hindered free scientific discussion.

Once again we find the Society liberally interpreting some Bible passages as figurative and

others as literal. Note that it's not so easy for a Biblical literalistto deal with what Job 38:6 says about the earth:

Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?

Is this passage dealing with the permanance of the earth? How can anyone know for certain?

When other passages areexamined in like manner it becomes obvious that the Society is willingto interpret Bible passages literally or figuratively, based not on asystematic method, but arbitrarily and based on its currentunderstanding of "science".

Evolution and Creation

There is,however, an area where many would say that modern science and the Bibleare hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe the theory ofevolution, which teaches that all living things evolved from a simpleform of life that came into existence millions of years ago.

The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that each major group of living things was specially created

Can both be correct?

Genesis gives no time scale for the creative days, and it is quite possible that Godspecially created many types of creatures one at a time, or created afew types that gradually evolved into the many we see today as well asthe huge number of extinct forms in the fossil record, or that he evencreated just one kind at the very beginning which evolved into everyliving thing we see today. It is even possible that God simply createdthe conditions under which life could arise more or less on its own. In all these cases God is still the ultimate creator and author of life.

The fossil recordcertainly shows a long history of life, where many forms arose and wentextinct, only to be replaced by a whole new set of forms. Some of theseforms existed for hundreds of millions of years.

It is interesting to note Mark H's notion that the bible teaches that animals only produce "their own kind"

In Lake Victoria in Africa there is a population of fish called "cichlids", which is ageneral category comprised of dozens of species. These species varygreatly in physical form and habits. Some eat vegetation and some arepredators. One kind only eats the scales from other fish by taking abite out of the side of them. Another kind only eats the eyes of otherfish by lunging at them and biting the eye out. None of the variousforms interbreed. All apparently descended from a small ancestralpopulation that got isolated in Lake Victoria some 10,000 years agoaround the end of the last ice age. If that is not "descent withmodification" so as to produce new species, I don't know what is. Noone knows of any limits on such modification, especially given millionsof years instead of a few thousand.

Darwin and other early theorists based these ideas on the rather obvious physical sequencefrom fish to reptile to mammal, and so forth. Of course, this is anextreme oversimplification. In any case, the science of genetics hasnicely confirmed the apparent physical sequences in that the moredistantly two kinds of creatures appear to be related physically, or intime, the more different they are genetically. This is shown by thefact that the DNA of chimpanzees and humans is 99% identical. They areobviously built quite similar physically, and fossil evidence indicatesa common ancestor on the order of 6 million years ago. Frogs areanother interesting case. There are thousands of species, and theydiffer from one another physically and genetically far more than dochimps and humans. They have also been around for some 300 millionyears and have had far more time.

As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed on isolated islands was not out of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a major living kind.

Some cichlids evolved into herbivores and others into predators. How could that happen if "kinds" were absolutely immutable?

Once again we find a gross oversimplication to the point of absurdity. That living thingshave evolved, in the sense that the population of living things haschanged radically over time, has been proved as conclusively as anyhistorical science can possibly be. To reject that is to reject all ofscience. Sure, plenty of scientists assert that there is no God andthat life arose entirely on its own (and this cannot be proved in anysense) but these two concepts -- the descent of life and the origin oflife -- are independent concepts. Watchtower writers depend on theirreaders' ignorance to get away with this sort of "reasoning".

We, however, need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible must be wrong.

Once again we see that black and white thinking.

Is It Proved?How can the theory of evolution be tested?The most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another really happened.

This is an extremely common argument that has been popularized largely by the young-earthcreationists. Darwin proposed that the evolution of life had to beextremely gradual. However, paleontologists have unearthed plenty ofevidence that life evolved at an extreme variety of paces, from hardlyany change at all over millions of years to the extremely rapid paceseen in the Lake Victoria cichlids. The fossil record is so sketchythat finding a record of extremely rapid evolution is unlikely;nevertheless such records have been found.

For example, it was longproposed that some reptiles evolved into mammals. Well of course thereal story is rather more complicated, and I certainly will barelyscratch the surface here by giving one example of change that isdocumented in the fossil record.

Early forms of reptileshad a jaw that consisted of four bones. They also had one earbone. Overa period of some 100 million years new animals appeared that had moreand more of the characteristics of mammals, which have one jawbone andthree earbones. Amazingly, two of the reptile jaw bones apparentlymigrated into the head and became earbones in various types of animalsduring this time, and another bone disappeared. Not possible, you say?Well, kangaroos, bandicoots and hedgehogs undergo a similar sort ofbone migration during their embryological development. There have evenbeen fossil animals discovered that have two hinged jaw systemsfunctioning side by side, one something like the old style and theother something like the new. For details on this see:

Next note what a well known scientist had to say about details of the evolution from reptiles to mammals (G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution,pp. 142-148, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971).He spoke about what he called transitional forms between, and theorigin of, various categories of animals:

If categories become well defined because forms intermediate between them become extinct,

then in the history of groups having a good fossil record we should beable to find periods when categories which are now well defined wereconnected by transitional forms. If we analyze the fossil record ofvertebrates, this is exactly what we see. Among modern animals, the dogand bear families are regarded as definitely related to each other, buteven when all contemporary members of the two families are considered,nobody has any difficulty in distinguishing bears from dogs, foxes, andcoyotes. In the Miocene and early Pliocene epochs, however, thesituation was different. At that time, animals intermediate betweendogs and bears were common, so that paleontologists have greatdifficulty in deciding just when the dog and bear families becamedistinct from each other...

Going farther back inthe fossil record, we learn that in the latter part of the Eoceneepoch, primitive animals which are now clearly recognized asforerunners of the principle families of carnivores: dogs, cats,weasels, civets, and their relatives, were linked together by a complexnetwork of resemblances...

There are... many differences between modern reptiles and amphibia in the structure oftheir skeletons, and these have been used by paleontologists forrecognizing the first reptiles to appear. An eminent paleontologist, A.S. Romer, remarks of these animals: "Primitive Paleozoic reptiles andsome of the earliest amphibians were so similar in their skeletons thatit is almost impossible to tell when we have crossed the boundarybetween the two classes."...

In respect to the early evolution of mammals, the same situation exists. The distinctivecharacteristics of modern mammals; warm blood, hair, and the ability tosuckle their young, cannot be determined in fossils. In respect totheir skeletons, however, modern reptiles are, and the dinosaurs were,very different from modern mammals. On the other hand, the animalswhich dominated the land in the later Permian and early TriassicPeriods, before the dinosaurs appeared, were the mammal-like reptilesor therapsids, which in both their skulls and teeth were almost halfwaybetween typical reptiles and primitive mammals...

During the Triassic Period, the therapsids gave rise to several groups of rather small,light-boned and active reptiles, which because of their specializedteeth were known as the "dog tooths" (cynodonts)... These animalsexisted for more than twenty million years during the latter half ofthe Triassic Period. Their skeletons were mammal-like in most respects,except that they had not yet acquired the three mammalian ear bones...the counterparts of two of them (quadrate and articular) were stillpart of the lower jaw... Recently discovered skulls indicate that theshift from jaw to ear bones took place gradually. Commenting on thissituation, an eminent paleontologist, E. H. Colbert, remarks: "All ofwhich indicates how academic is the question of where the reptilesleave off and the mammals begin."...

The first true mammals appeared in the late Triassic Period, about the time when the cynodontswere becoming extinct. The age of dinosaurs began later, during theJurassic Period. During the entire period when the earth was dominatedby these reptilian giants, small active mammals existed side by sidewith dinosaurs.

These facts tell us that the transition from reptiles to mammals was very gradual, taking placeover a period of approximately 100 million years. It took placesimultaneously with the beginning of the major adaptive radiation ofthe reptiles themselves. Mammals are simply a further extension,through directional evolution, of one particular radiant line ofreptiles.

The transition from reptiles to birds is more poorly documented than are the othertransitions between classes of vertebrates. Nevertheless, many of thesmaller reptiles in the group ancestral to dinosaurs and crocodiles hadlight skeletons from which those of birds could have arisen, andmoreover walked exclusively on their hind legs, as do birds.Furthermore, the earliest fossil birds, from Jurassic deposits ofGermany, had jaws containing teeth and forelimbs with well developedfingers... We classify them as birds because feathers are preservedwith their skeletons; but if their preservation had been somewhatpoorer and the feathers were not present, these animals might well havebeen classified as reptiles.

Thus the fossil record of vertebrates strongly suggests that the characteristics whichdistinguish the modern higher categories appeared first as distinctivefeatures of certain species or genera. They became characteristics offamilies, orders, and classes only after descendants of the animalswhich first possessed them developed them further, radiated intonumerous adaptive niches, and became separated from other groups byextinction of intermediate forms. In other groups of organisms such asinsects and higher plants, in which the fossil record is far morefragmentary, profound gaps exist between many orders, suborders, andclasses. Furthermore, no transitional forms are known between any ofthe major phyla of animals or plants. In view of the incompleteness andbiased nature of the fossil record in all of these groups, and theextremely long time, measured in hundreds of millions of years, sincethe various phyla of organisms evolved, the large gaps which existbetween many major categories of organisms aside from the vertebratesare most reasonably ascribed to known imperfections in the fossilrecord...

A further point must be emphasized in connection with the evolution of families, orders, andclasses. This is its "mosaic" character. As pointed out in connectionwith both the evolution of amphibia from fishes and of mammals fromreptiles, the various characteristics which now distinguish the moreevolved class probably evolved separately, some relatively early,others much later, at periods of evolutionary time which in someinstances were separated from each other by millions of years...

Consequently, we cannot speak of any single "step" in the evolution of mammals from reptiles.In some instances, such as the change in position of the jaw bones tothe ear, a relatively small number of genetic changes may havetriggered off the evolution and establishment of a new adaptive complexwith respect to that particular character... These changes wouldhowever, have occurred at the level of subspecies or closely relatedspecies. A contemporary taxonomist, transported to the Mesozoic era andnot knowing anything about the evolutionary future, would probably haveclassified the first population bearing all three bones; hammer, anviland stirrup, in its middle ear, as an aberrant species belonging to thethen widespread group of therapsid reptiles. As stated above, thisgroup probably already possessed a mixture of characters which we nowassociate on the one hand with reptiles and on the other with mammals.

So obvious is this lackof evidence in the fossil record that evolutionists have come up withalternatives to Darwin's theory of gradual change.

Another gross distortion typical of the Society's Creationbook. The reference is to the theory called Punctuated Equilibrium thatpaleontologist Stephen Gould and his colleagues have promoted. Thisidea acknowledges that most of the time evolutionary change is slow ornon-existent, and proposes that under unusual circumstances evolutioncan proceed at an extremely rapid pace. Because most of the changeswill not appear in the fossil record, since the chance of an animalbecoming a fossil is slight, the fossil record appears like a series ofstill photographs taken from a football game at 30 second intervals --most of the action is missing but the overall flow can be inferred fromthe results.

As the references given above show, there is plenty of fossil evidence for both gradual and"punctuated" evolution. Darwin naturally proposed an incomplete theory,which has been modified in light of later developments. No surprise,since that is the way science works. Science is not a static body ofknowledge given by God, but is a dynamic body of knowledge alwayssubject to modification if and when new discoveries clarify ideas oreven cause old ones to be discarded. Some things, of course, are sosolidly established that it is extremely unlikely that they will everbe discarded.

What the WTB&TS does, in effect, is to argue that since Darwin's ideas have been modified,the entire theory of evolution -- what existed in 1859 and what existstoday -- along with all of the evidence for the various aspects of thevarious sub-theories -- should be discarded. THey do this by using thefuzzy idea that since Darwin's idea of exclusively gradual evolution has had to be modified to account for the appearance in the fossil record of extremely rapid evolution, Darwin's idea should be discarded along with the more modernones. The fallacy of the WTb&TS argument should be obvious to allreaders.

The truth is, though,that the sudden appearance of animal kinds in the fossil recordsupports special creation much more than it does evolution.

A matter of opinion. The degree to which either is supported is a matter of spirited debate.

Living creatures are programmed to reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else. Of course

living creatures contain genetic material to reproduce themselvesexactly. But they are not 100% accurate. That's why mutations arise.

There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger.Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under anycircumstances yet devised.Mutations induced by scientists in fruit flies over many decades failed to force these to evolve into something else.

True, but nature itself has provided many examples of things evolving into something else. Theexact mechanism may be in question but the fact of the evolution is not.

The Origin of Life

Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is: What was the origin of life?

Once again we note the lumping of "descent with modification" -- which the fossil record

strongly indicates -- with ideas on origins, which are admittedlyfuzzy. This sort of lumping allows poor thinkers to think thateverything they lump together may be of equal quality, which is a grossfallacy. Some scienitists with a similar mindset would lump everything in the bible as bunkum.

How did the first simple form of life -- from which we are all supposed to have descended -- come into existence?

No one disputes that this is an unanswered question.

Centuries ago, this would not have appeared to be a problem. Most people then thought that

flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile of old ragscould spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred years ago,the French chemist Louis Pasteur clearly demonstrated that life cancome only from preexisting life.

Another fallacy. Pasteur demonstrated that today and in a short time spanlife does not appear spontaneously. He demonstrated nothing aboutconditions that may have existed a long time ago, nor about whetherlife can spontaneously generate under the right conditions.

So how do evolutionists explain the source of life?

Most don't. They acceptthat life, once it appeared by whatever means, evolved by somemechanism to what it is today. Those mechanisms are what concern 99% oflife scientists today. The few who concern themselves with a purelynon-supernatural theory of origins subscribe to what the WTB&TS writer describes:

According to the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy sparked a

spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What about theprinciple that Pasteur proved?

Note again the wrong notion about what Pasteur showed.

The World Book Encyclopedia

explains: "Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously underthe chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today.Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions onthe earth were far different"!

The Bible's explanation, that 'life came from life' in that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts.

However, the "evolutionary" explanation is also in harmony with the facts. What's a truthseeker to do?

Why Not Creation

Despitethe problems inherent in the theory of evolution, belief in creation isviewed today as unscientific, even eccentric. Why is this?

The drive to separate religion from science and everything else is strong andunderstandable. When religion invokes the idea of God as the ultimatesource, and then baulks at the question of what is the origin of God,it is evident that religionists have no ultimate answers to thequestion of origins any more than anyone else does.

No scientist, in contrast with dogmatists like JW Governing Body members, is likely to state with 100% confidence that anything has occurred in the past. But this is not a problem because, incontrast with certain religious leaders, scientists do not claim tospeak for God, or go from door to door to convince others to changetheir lifestyles to match theirs because they have the Truth!

The truth is that the theory of evolution, despite its popularity, is full of gaps andproblems. It gives no good reason to reject the Bible's account of theorigin of life. The first chapter of Genesis provides a completelyreasonable account of how these "unrepeatable" "unique events" cameabout during creative 'days' that stretched through millenniums of time.

In the same way, the Catholic Church justified its stance with respect to Galileo.

Dinosaurs extinct because of the Flood

This is a common myth propagated by pseudoscientists and general crackpots. It dates to thelate 19th century and was largely instigated by one Henry Howorth, afringe geologist who could think of no other interpretation for thefinding of frozen large animals in the Arctic than a huge catastrophe.Unfortunately, Howorth and others badly misinterpreted the evidence andthought that events that have since been shown to have occurred overperhaps 30,000 years were instantaneous. The extinctions mentioned tookat least 8,000 years. For example, a dwarf species of mammoth stilllived on certain Mediterranean islands as recently as 4,000 years ago,while its cousin the Siberian Mammoth died out some 6,000 years earlier.

There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that at some single point in time large numbers oflarge mammals became extinct, and that there was a simultaneous suddenchange in climate. There certainly was a change in climate from about18,000 through 10,000 years ago, during which many animals becameextinct, but it was a warming trend that signaled the end of the last ice age.

There is absolutely no evidence for the Society's claim that "tens of thousands of mammothswere killed" simultaneously and then "quick-frozen in Siberia". Onceagain this is due to the horrible misinterpretations of Howorth and afew others. A number of large mammals have been found that upon carefulanalysis proved to have died of quite natural causes and were graduallyfrozen, and which partially decomposed before they froze. A look at thereports from the intrepid Russian scientists who took two years torecover acarcass shows that the carcass was badly decomposed deepinside. The outer portions were frozen and preserved well enough thatsled dogs ate some of the meat, but the men who dug it out realizedthat the flesh was already in bad shape when it was frozen. One of themore enlightening aspects of their report concerned the unbearablestench from the carcass, which even permeated the frozen ground aroundit, which proves that the carcass was decomposed during the freezingprocess.

Perhaps the best disproof of the notion of "huge numbers of quick-frozen animals" is the1979 discovery of a partial frozen bison carcass in Alaska. This wasdubbed "Blue Babe" because of the blue mineral crystals that hadaccumulated on the hide during the more than 30,000 years it remainedin the Alaskan permafrost. It turned out that the bison, a form nowextinct, had been killed and mostly eaten by lions. That lions had donethe deed was found from a piece of lion tooth that had broken off andbecome lodged in the frozen flesh of the forequarters. The lions atemost of the body, leaving the skin and much of the forequarters. Thehead was virtually intact. There is no way such a thing could havehappened during the cataclysmic events of a Flood

. In a nutshell, ice ages have come and gone roughly every 100,000 years for about the last three million years.

At any rate, in the 1920s and 1930s, archaeologist Leonard Woolley discovered inMesopotamia the remains of a great flood. Unfortunately for biblicalliteralists, it proved to be local to the region. Very likely it wasthis, or a similar large but local flood in the vicinity of the Tigrisand Euphrates rivers, that gave rise to the legend that spread aroundthe world.

This argument about the widespread idea of an ancient Flood is actually by far thestrongest that the Society has. But it is far from conclusive, and itcertainly doesn't prove it as a fact.

The two best documented ancient cultures -- the Egyptians and the Chinese -- have records goingback more than 5,000 years and yet these records show nothing of aFlood. This completely contradicts the WTB&TS chronology thatplaces a global Flood in 2370 B.C.E., about 4,400 years ago. However,there is much evidence that the Mesopotamian Valley, the region wherethe biblical Elohim resided during this period, suffered a major flood.